Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spamhaus to Ignore $11.7M Judgement

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-say-it's-spam-and-i-say-the-hell-with-it dept.

471

6031769 writes, "As reported on CNet, Spamhaus is choosing to ignore a judgement of $11.7M against them in an uncontested trial in an Illinois court. According to Spamhaus, the judgement has no impact on them, since they are a British organization." From the Spamhaus reply to the judgment: "Default judgments obtained in US county, state or federal courts have no validity in the UK and can not be enforced under the British legal system... As spamming is illegal in the UK, an Illinois court ordering a British organization to stop blocking incoming Illinois spam in Britain goes contrary to UK law which orders all spammers to cease sending spam in the first place."

cancel ×

471 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

me first? (-1, Redundant)

astonishedelf (845821) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112712)

Hot damn.

wow (3, Interesting)

freakybob (715183) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112744)

I love how you can just ignore a multimillion dollar judgement. It's their attitude that I find amusing - they really couldn't give a shit.

Re:wow (4, Insightful)

mustafap (452510) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112776)

>It's their attitude that I find amusing - they really couldn't give a shit.

It's your attitude that I find amusing - They are preventing an illegal acting being commited in our country. Why should they give a shit?

Re:wow (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112811)

Well, he didn't really say that they should give a shit - he just thought it funny that they were witholding of their shit.

I occasionally buy products from spammers (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112901)

just to piss the elitist spam haters off. a side benefit is that I am now an incredible lover with a huge penis and I get great deals on real estate loans.

Re:wow (3, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112841)

I would agree with you if they didn't reach into America, but on their site they say the following:

The Spamhaus Block List

The SBL is a realtime database of IP addresses of verified spam sources (including spammers, spam gangs and spam support services), maintained by the Spamhaus Project team and supplied as a free service to help email administrators better manage incoming email streams.

The SBL is queriable in realtime by mail systems thoughout the Internet, allowing email administrators to identify or block incoming connections from IP addresses involved in the sending of Unsolicited Bulk Email.

The SBL database is updated 24/7 by a dedicated international Spamhaus team (US, UK, NL, IT, CA, JP, CN) and is broadcast by 32 SBL zone mirror servers based in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, UK and USA.


Google cannot ignore the laws of the land where their servers are based, if they want to operate in foreign countries they should follow local laws.

Re:wow (3, Informative)

legoburner (702695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112899)

Google operate businesses in countries where they operate, so have to obey local laws as they can be punished. Services like spamhaus are not legally based in other countries so only have to obey their patron law.

Re:wow (5, Interesting)

theckhd (953212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112873)

They are preventing an illegal acting being commited in our country. Why should they give a shit?
Now let's pretend that the plaintiff in the case wasn't a spam company with a stupid name, but instead is a regular user who gets put on the list by mistake. From what I've read about Spamhaus, they tend to "not give a shit" in that sort of situation either, which is unfortunate. A good example why vigilante justice isn't always a good thing.

An even more interesting quandry: What if a large, well-recognized organization with deep pockets gets put on the list by mistake in the same fashion? Any bets as to how long it would take before they get removed?

Re:wow (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112786)

Hey, attitude if everything.

I have to wonder though... could the decision (the one they're ignoring) be used as "evidence of their wrongdoing" if they were sued by the same spammer, but in the UK this time? I mean, okay, sure, the UK judge should look at the case and throw it out regardless, but does the decision here in the states carry any weight over there in the UK?

Re:wow (4, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113033)

Not a chance. Failing to reply to an incorrectly served, non-jurisdictional court order for a country that you don't operate in, by a Judge with no savvy at all and on a law that not only doesn't exist in the UK but which operates under the OPPOSITE principle (i.e. if you spam, that's illegal in itself)? They wouldn't even give it a second thought.

They'd probably use it AGAINST the people who were trying to sue Spamhaus - poor lawyering, scaremongering, trying to impose laws across international jurisdictions, playing judges off against one another etc.

Re:wow (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112809)

and they shouldn't care either.

Re:wow (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112926)

I love how you can just ignore a multimillion dollar judgement. It's their attitude that I find amusing - they really couldn't give a shit.

They aren't really ignoring the judgement. Instead they looked at it, discovered it is legally enforceable, and told the Illinois Court to get lost. They've declared the judgement irrelevant.

First Spam! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112751)

Hey at least it's on topic

Good for Spamhaus (4, Insightful)

ronanbear (924575) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112754)

The right to block Spam is important. I hope their executives don't try going over to America any time soon though. If I worked for them I'd be pretty nervous about taking transatlantic flights.

Re:Good for Spamhaus (3, Interesting)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112784)

I'd be pretty nervous about taking transatlantic flights

Like everyone isn't already ;-)

Seriously though, it's a civil suit, not criminal. They can't be arrested, can they? Or would they be liable for Contempt of Court? Even then, would it be enforcable outside IL? Any lawyers here to answer this?

Re:Good for Spamhaus (2, Insightful)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112879)

>They can't be arrested, can they
The poster is probably referring to two british company directors (different firms) who have been arrested as soon as they stepped off the plane because they run Internet gambling firms, quiet legal in the UK but illegal in the US.

Jurisdiction (3, Informative)

Alaren (682568) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113022)

I am not a lawyer, but I am in law school. If I'm understanding my first-year class on civil procedure at all: exercising jurisdiction overseas is complicated, but if somone is in the U.S. (or even just flying over it), they're subject to U.S. jursidiction. In this particular case, the Full Faith and Credit clause would make the decision enforceable outside IL, as well. Note that none of these procedural questions are dependent on the merits or validity of the original decision, which is most certainly questionable in this instance... internet jurisdiction is by no means settled law.

What I don't know is what the possible penalty might be for ignoring a settlement like this. Other foreigners in similar situations are usually arrested on criminal charges, at least in the cases I am aware of.

Heh... and I guess now I get to say it for the first time. "I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice." After ten years in IT, I have to say, that felt really weird.

All spammers must die! (5, Funny)

fe105 (146603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112758)

It is probably best to kill all spammers! I have been fighting spam for many years now. Why do they get to cause other people so much grieve and work?

Killing people in general is not right, but if you do it in a humane way, like shoot them through the head with a .454 casul?

It can't be hard to find volunteers for doing this. Shooting casul is a blast! ;)

p.s. don't actually do this..

Re:All spammers must die! (4, Funny)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112834)

Killing people in general is not right, but if you do it in a humane way, like shoot them through the head with a .454 casul?

Firm, but fair! I don't think anyone could find fault with that!! ;)

Kill Spammers and Politicians (2, Insightful)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112890)

Agreed. I would support a bill to legalize assassination. Wouldn't our spammers and government officials think twice if their actions were going to get them killed/tortured/beaten/imprisoned?

The bigger question (3, Insightful)

portwojc (201398) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112761)

If a company is sending spam why isn't the ISP for that company shutting them down? Isn't it against the AUP of most providers or at least the big carriers?

Re:The bigger question (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112788)

I would think that if the spammer is paying tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars every month in bandwidth costs the carriers will probably play dumb for as long as possible. As much as ISPs hate the cost of delivering spam I'm sure they love getting paid to send it.

Re:The bigger question (1)

Matts (1628) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112845)

I wish it were that simple. Sadly your question is terribly naive.

See: http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=ver izonbusiness.com [spamhaus.org] for example.

Re:The bigger question (1)

portwojc (201398) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113045)

Yeah I know it sounds naive but it's not that naive. Having worked for an ISP in the past for many years I found it rather easy and honestly very enjoyable to shut off someone who's spamming. Of course that was back in the day providers actually cared...

Perhaps the lawsuits against spammers need to be directed at the providers as well for continuing to allow their customers to send spam. After all they aren't enforcing their acceptable usage policy.
They are profiting from it too indirectly.

You'd think that would be the case! (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112957)

If a company is sending spam why isn't the ISP for that company shutting them down? Isn't it against the AUP of most providers or at least the big carriers?

You'd think that would be the case, but once carriers have their money, they don't so much care. I send out lots of abuse reports, and I will more often than not -- hear nothing at all, and have nothing done about it. Monster.com is one of the more annoying spammers I get. They just don't care.

If only it were that simple (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112982)

I used to work for a marketing company that later got into spamming (and shortly thereafter I tended my resignation). The ISP's are in collusion with the spammers. They tell the world one thing, and then they tell the spammer to pay a fee to get a different block of IP addresses under a different subsidiary name. They know where the money is.

Re:The bigger question (2, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112983)

Because (as is well known), American public corporations are not ethical. None of them. Money is the prime objective and how you get it is irrelivent.

Re:The bigger question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112984)

Personally, I rather prefer that the ISPs don't shut down the spammers. Think about it. If the spammers stay with their current ISP/IP block(s), it's that much easier to keep them blocked from your own network permanently.

Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (4, Insightful)

dfn5 (524972) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112767)

For example when you tell them that they blacklisted your IP address and you can vouche that you don't spam, but they won't do anything because you belong to a /16 where somewhere sombody is spamming. blacklisting might be a good idea, but organizations like spamhaus make it bad in practice.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (2, Insightful)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112830)

Surely all Spamhaus do is maintain a blacklist of network addresses of known spammers? They don't block the spam themselves. How could they? It seems like the US court order is... insane.

Spamhaus are not liable if the information they published is used by a third party to decide not to accept your mail. Instead, blame the third party for making such a sweeping and unrealistic decision with only a minimum of supporting data.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (1)

IAmTheDave (746256) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112878)

It seems like the US court order is... insane.

It's because judges in the US are old and really have absolutely no idea what they are judging on when they make judgements on technology. If they're as informed as Ted "Tubes" Stevens, well, it shouldn't come as any surprise that US courts are as insane as US lawmakers.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113011)

They could be liable for libel though. If they blacklist an IP, and the blacklisting is not valid, then having it on the list is like labelling the operator of the IP a spammer, which is somehow libellous if incorrect.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (2, Informative)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113052)

But they blacklist networks, don't they. They simply state that users of that network send spam. I'm sure they have an entry in their database saying why each network was listed.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113037)

They don't block the spam themselves. How could they?

Yeah. But that's weaselling out of it.

They add IPs to the list knowing full well that those IPS will be blocked, intending that those IPs will be blocked, with the result that those IPs are blocked. For practical purposes, what is the difference between this and actually blocking them?

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (2, Informative)

tokul (682258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112849)

Are you sure that you haven't confused Spamhaus with SPEWS or some DUL list?

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112853)

They only block larger parts when the ISP involved does not cleanup the problems or moves the spammer around inside their IP space. As far as 'escalation' listings go, Spamhaus is sure one of the more moderate parties, who only escalate after contacting the ISP fails.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (4, Interesting)

fostware (551290) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112857)

You're thinking of SORBS

spamhaus is actually quite responsive, even with the inherant delays of communicating from Western Australia :P

I have never had SORBS remove a wrong ISP block... well, not until a week later and I'm pretty sure it's not in response to me.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (3, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112937)

For example when you tell them that they blacklisted your IP address and you can vouche that you don't spam, but they won't do anything because you belong to a /16 where somewhere sombody is spamming. blacklisting might be a good idea, but organizations like spamhaus make it bad in practice.

Complain to people who use the list, not the people making the list.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113064)

Surely it's bad form to have a spam list that's inaccurate.

How does one complain to the people who use the list? email?

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112977)

If you're worried about someone sending spam from a shared IP block, I'd start walking to another provider where your CIDR sub-block is registered to you and you only.

Hmmmm (4, Insightful)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112768)

Sounds like a very appropriate response. Illinois is trying to enforce an ill-conceived law and Spamhouse is within their rights in under the laws of the country they opperate from. I do want to see the judges reaction to this one, it should be worth a laugh.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112804)

Screw the judge. I want to hear what Ted 'Tubes' Stevens has to say.

Color me confused. (5, Interesting)

Kirin Fenrir (1001780) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112769)

I'm no lawyer, so can somebody explain to me how a court can say that Spamhaus, a service that customers voluntarily sign up for, cannot index IP addresses theat users wish to block? There is nothing Spamhaus does that a local mail server cannot do, they just already have a blacklist for you. Spamhaus is just, "Hey, don't trust these guys."

That's like saying I can't go to Consumer Reports and get an opinion on what car to buy.

Re:Color me confused. (2, Informative)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112790)

No, that's more like saying Consumer Reports can't say "Don't buy a Ford Pinto."

Re:Color me confused. (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112951)

Don't see why some consumer organisation can't say "We don't recommend you buy (product) for (reason)", however, and you choose how much attention you pay to this recommendation.

SpamAssassin already does this - it's quite possible to set it up so something can be sent from something registered with spamhaus yet make it through the filter if everything else indicates it's not spam.

Re:Color me confused. (5, Informative)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112828)

Ehhh... not quite. See, e360insight is claiming that they're not a spammer, and thus their inclusion on the Spamhaus list is hurting their business, their image, is defamatory, and/or whatever else they think that they can get away with. And, because of this decision the (obviously clue-impaired) judge agreed with e360insight.

The analogy (with regards to your reference to Consumer Reports) would be if Consumer Reports published an opinion that a car company strongly disagreed with and believed was incorrect. You know, like saying "The new Ford SUV gets excellent mileage, considering it runs on the souls of orphaned children."

Re:Color me confused. (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112956)

With libel laws being even worse in Britain, it'd be interesting for them to take the case to Britain now. In Britain, the burden of proof, in defamation cases, is actually against the defendant (that is, once it's proven a statement was made by the defendant that clearly harms the reputation of the plaintiff, the defendant has to prove it is truthful and fair. Yeah, fair. Truth is not always, by itself, a defense.)

Re:Color me confused. (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113029)

The judge was probably in the right sadly. Without -any- defense, the judge has no choice but to side with the plaintiff. Don't ask me how they came up with the damages though..

Re:Color me confused. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112867)

It's a default judgement, so the courts really didn't say anything.

Re:Color me confused. (2, Informative)

soarkalm (845400) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112940)

I think there might be something in that the blurb says "defualt" judgement. If the defendant doesn't show up, then the case automatically goes against him, no?

It's the law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112771)

An $11.7M default judgement against a foreign entity. You guys crack me up.

Whats next? (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112772)

Am I going to get sued for blocking all those random girls from eastern europe and asia from contacting me via Skype?

Re:Whats next? (1)

azzy (86427) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112803)

Only if you let us share your list.

Please, can we share your list?

Re:Whats next? (1)

whoppo (218875) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113066)

You mean if you've got skype, you've got hot ChiXors from EU and Asia calling you? What have I been missing?!?!

great (1)

stocke2 (600251) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112775)

this is just great, now spammers sue because you block thier spam. what's next? maybe cat burglers can sue those people with iron bars on thier windows, recoup thier loss of revenue

Re:great (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112805)

Didn't someone sue when they fell on a knife after breaking into someone's house and won or is that just an myth?

Re:great (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112810)

Or the RIAA can ...

nah, that's too easy.

Re:great (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112817)

Not quite, but in the UK if you top a wall barbed wire or crushed glass on which a burglar cuts themselves, you've broken the law. Brambles are fine though :-)

Good for them (1)

Damastus the WizLiz (935648) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112780)

I actually find the whole situation ammusing. But I say good for them. I am glad the company knows its rights and will not be walked all over by a court system well known for allowing people to abuse the ability to file civil suits.

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112989)

"a court system well known for allowing people to abuse the ability to file civil suits"

You mean like the High Court in England which allows perjurers like "lord" Archer and Aitken to falsely sue for libel? (Aitken lost. Archer won. Both were subsequently convicted of perjury and other criminal offences relating to Perverting the Course of Justice. Both were imprisoned)

Re:Good for them (1)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113001)

Abuse... the ability? IMO, I'm much happier with the system that allows anyone to file a civil suit for any reason, than to allow our legislative body determine who should be allowed to file a suit and under what circumstances. That would quickly turn into a case of the rich and powerful tilting the field even further in their direction.

operating in the US? (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112791)

"This ruling confirms e360insight's position that Spamhaus.org is a fanatical, vigilante organization that operates in the United States with blatant disregard for U.S. law,"

Are they operating within the US or are people choosing to use their service within the US? There's a big difference between the two as far as I'm concerned.

Re:operating in the US? (1)

theckhd (953212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112820)

FTA:
The Spamhaus blocklist is a database of verified spam sources that is supplied at no cost to help e-mail administrators clean incoming e-mail streams.

It seems it's the latter.

Re:operating in the US? (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112865)

Exactly, which gives them every right to ignore this ruling IMHO. However, if I were involved with Spamhaus, I certainly wouldn't visit the US anytime soon.

Re:operating in the US? (1)

theckhd (953212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112946)

I agree. However, Liquidcooled [slashdot.org] brought up a good point in an earlier thread [slashdot.org] :
The SBL database is updated 24/7 by a dedicated international Spamhaus team (US, UK, NL, IT, CA, JP, CN) and is broadcast by 32 SBL zone mirror servers based in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, UK and USA.

Google cannot ignore the laws of the land where their servers are based, if they want to operate in foreign countries they should follow local laws.

I wonder how exact this analogy is though, since Google is distinctly for-profit, and make money off of the work the servers do. I can't seem to find a reference on the Spamhaus website as to how Spamhaus supports itself.

good luck lads. (2)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112797)

While ignoring the US system of 'Justice' is probably something Americans should do too, especially when it concerns implausibly large damages payouts, I think Spamhaus will need a lawyer or two. I refer the honourable anti-spam heroes to a similar case of fairness, justice and all-round puppy-like agreements. [bbc.co.uk]

Re:good luck lads. (3, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112979)

The Natwest 3 concerns a criminal case. This is a civil case. There's no risk of extradiction.

Slight error (4, Informative)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112801)

"in an uncontested trial in an Illinois court."

It isn't an Illinois court, it's a federal district court that happens to be in Illinois [wikipedia.org] .

Cost to defend themselves not worth it (1)

RaigetheFury (1000827) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112808)

Why should a UK waste it's funding on defending a frivolous lawsuit that doesn't affect them. Now how the hell a US court can sue a company that doesn't exist within it's jurisdiction blows my mind.

Re:Cost to defend themselves not worth it (3, Insightful)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112921)

But that's what the US does, assumes whatever works there works throughout the world whether it's laws or just general ways of life. people and companies throughout the world are constantly fending off legal actions in regard to things that are quite legal on their home turf but illegal in the US.

Re:Cost to defend themselves not worth it (1)

ohearn (969704) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113035)

Because US politicians seem to think the entire internet is in teh jurisdiction of the US courts.

Figth back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112814)

If I remember right there is a law in Uk that states that filling a meritless case is illegal.

I think that this is the case.

Missed opportunity (5, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112815)

I dont know why Spamhaus missed this great business opportunity.

It shoud send out the following email to everyone.

Dear Email Recepient,

My name is Sir Arthur Cunnigham, Bar-at-Law, Queen's Bench, City of London, the United Kingdom. The Illinois Supreme court, Chicago Illinois, USA has awarded a judgement against me [com.com] for the sum of 11 million dollars. If you have received any unsolicited email from me, I will have to pay you, 535$ as your share of the settlement. Even if you have not received any mail from me before, this email itself will entitle you a share towards the settlement.

So please send me your name, your address, your social security number, your bank account number, the routing number of your bank so that I can remit the said sum without undue delay. In addition to verify your identity, please let me have a valid credit card number, its expiration date and the card verification number. Please allow six weeks for me to raid^H^H^H^H credit your account with the money I owe you.

Have a nice day. Thank you

Re:Missed opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112928)

U hv mssd het pnt.

Competence of the court (1)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112818)

Can any lawyer comment on how and why the US court thought it was competent to try the case in the first place? I know many Americans think that US law applies to all other countries, but in general American lawyers know better than this. It will be interesting to see if the US court tries to get extradition of the Spamhaus board to the US, and if our heroic government, pledged as they are to defend our rights, cave in to them as they did over Enron.

Just hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112826)

Just hope the Spamhaus people aren't planning on visiting the US any time soon... http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/18/13 6225/ [slashdot.org]

Okay - I'm not a fan of RBLs (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112833)

The people who run these things usually have a rather superior attitude, and a rather childish attitude toward the law.

But this lawsuit seems completely ludicrous. Even with an undefended lawsuit it should have been obvious that this was outside their jurisdiction. Isn't there some restriction here?

Re:Okay - I'm not a fan of RBLs (1)

SSpade (549608) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113042)

The people who run these things usually have a rather superior attitude, and a rather childish attitude toward the law.

SpamHaus is (almost always) one of the rare exceptions to that.

But this lawsuit seems completely ludicrous. Even with an undefended lawsuit it should have been obvious that this was outside their jurisdiction. Isn't there some restriction here?

Perhaps. SpamHaus, to the extent there is an entity called SpamHaus, does have infrastructure in the US or under the indirect control of US corporations.

Default Judgements (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112835)

Before we all go off half cocked about Illinois coursts and how stupid the decision was... It was a default Judgment which means Spamhaus failed to show up in court and the Judge found in the plaintiffs failure.. Shame on them from not coming to fight it, and shame on us for putting judges in place that can not see through some technical jargon to realize when something is total crap and dismiss it on lack of merits.

Re:Default Judgements (1, Flamebait)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112938)

Ahem.. This is another example of braindead americans who think that the whole world is within their jurisdiction.

A UK company can not be hauled in front of the courts in USA. if you, an American company ro citizen wants to take legal action against a foreign company, it has to be done in the country where the company is a legal entity.
Americans are the dumbest idiots.

Re:Default Judgements (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112986)

I hereby sue you for stupidity which is illegal on my planet of Jupiter and hereby order that if you don't attend the case on my planet, you will be liable by default for seven squillion Jupitan dollars.

Of course you should pack up all your gear, drive immediately to NASA and catch the first shuttle, shouldn't you?

Re:Default Judgements (1)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112994)

Shame on them from not coming to fight it

Why fight it if it doesn't affect them?

Say what you will (2, Informative)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112837)

Linhardt and his company are indeed spammers and remain on the Spamhaus blocklist, the organization said. Posting a note that e360insignt was inaccurately labeled as a spammer would be a lie, Spamhaus said. If Linhardt wants a ruling that counts, he needs to refile his case in the UK, according to Spamhaus.

There are many out there that have had bad experiences with Spamhaus, but in this case, this guy is a known spammer. I'm surprised the court even gave credence to the lawsuit, but apparently the judge is not up on the Internet and spam. They are correct -- if he wants a judgement, he needs to file in UK court, where, given their recent history of prosecuting spammers, he stands little chance of succeeding.

Re:Say what you will (1)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112963)

I'm surprised the court even gave credence to the lawsuit,
Spamhaus chose not to defend the suit, so the Court pretty much had to issue a default judgement.

Re:Say what you will (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113016)

I don't think the judge was necessarily clueless - according to the article, it was a "default judgement." IANAL, but my understanding is that in civil cases, if the defendant doesn't bother showing up to court (as in this case) then they default on the case and the plaintiff wins automatically.

From my understanding, in that case, the judge essentially accepts all the plaintiff's arguments as true and applies a judgement based on that assumption.

So it's not so much that the judge was clueless as that Spamhaus is totally ignoring US law, which sort of makes sense for a UK group.

Spam is a problem. (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112839)

Spam is a serious problem. I run my own (Sendmail, thank you very much) mail server. I subscribe to a bunch of these blacklists, and also trade this huge list of spammers with a friend of mine from a local university. I still get spammed.

Some of us DIY sysadmins are on cable modems. Some of us are at a budget colo with no reverse DNS. I'm on some of the blacklists some of the time, and so there are some places I just can't send mail.

I don't trust any of the new mail systems, and I'm happy to deal with this anarchaic system. I'd like to be allowed to form spammer lynchmobs, and physically kick their asses though.

Re:Spam is a problem. (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113081)

Funnily enough I've had anti-spammers call me a spammer because I operate my own mail server too - for incoming email only.

I've never trusted the bulk of anti-spammers and I see no reason to do so today. The bulk of them are stupid, and are more concerned with hurting perceived supporters of spammers (including the old "Person who has an account on an ISP that's owned by another ISP that has another subsidary that has a spammer as a customer" chestnut) than actually making the Internet work smoothly.

There are relatively easy ways, if you operate your own server, to deal with spam. The most obvious, which has worked for me for over a decade, is to provide every entity you do business with with a unique email address - an alias to contact you by - and close that email address if you start receiving spam on it. It's hard to go wrong, the only people who are hurt are those who provided the email address to spammers in the first place.

Unfortunately, with the anti-spam fuck-ups spending more and more time trying to convince ISPs to block all port 25 traffic and encouraging blanket anti-server policies, it's becoming harder and harder for an individual to implement this solution, despite the rather obvious fact that if it were commonplace, spam would become almost impossible to do as it would be in nobody's interests to sell email addresses. (Not to mention the fact that if the problem with spam is that it overloads ISP email servers, letting people run their own pretty much solves that problem.)

Real anti-spam solutions involve holding people accountable for their actions and their use of the Internet. That means encouraging the use of static IP addresses so repeat offenders can be blocked. It means encouraging people to run their own servers rather than sharing ISP machines. It means solutions like the one I've mentioned, one-to-one email addresses rather than one-to-many where any of the many can hurt all the others.

I can't comment on Spamhaus specifically, and it would be nice to think they recognize these issues, but I do believe they're proposing the wrong solutions. And perhaps in the short-term that's necessary, but it would be nice to hear the anti-spam lobby back away from the "We need to harm the Internet to save it" and "Trust us. And if you don't, we'll do what we can to undermine you" positions and move towards encouraging geniune accountability.

I like spamhaus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112847)

we use XBL on our MTA but that reply is poorly worded and lacking the outright sarcasm the situation demands.

Jurisdiction? (4, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112860)

How did the Illinois judge decide they had jurisdiction over a UK-only company in the first place? I thought courts throw out cases that they have no jurisdiction over.

Re:Jurisdiction? (1)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112919)

I really have no idea, but I assume since spamhaus does not seem to have filed any motions, like one for dismisal, the judge just ruled for the default judgement.

Re:Jurisdiction? (1)

Rucker (39335) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112987)

I'm not sure the court doesn't have jurisdiction. Spamhaus is offering a service to US entities, right? Imagine if a British company started offering banking services to the US. Because the company is in Britian, does it mean they can ignore all US banking laws? I doubt it.

Re:Jurisdiction? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16113049)

Swiss banks and lots of others offer banking to US people and they do ignore US Banking laws.

CIA to the rescue (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112864)

If we rename spamming, e-mail-bombing, we may convince the spooks at Mother's Company, Langley, VA to do some extrodinary rendition of the Sapmhaus board of directors and executives. Just a thought.

Precedent? (1)

TheWoozle (984500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112889)

Isn't this a bad thing, not for Spamhaus, but for companies that do the same kind of thing and *are* in the US? WIth this case as precedent, can't the spammers now attack US-based anti-spam companies?

I'll keep this in mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16112906)

And the next time someone in the U.K. sues me, I'll simply ignore the judgement. Ignoring other countries' laws is fun!

Re:I'll keep this in mind (5, Funny)

ledow (319597) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112967)

Troll and obviously supposed to be sarcasm.

But maybe the next time someone in a foreign country tries to sue you for something that's a) not illegal in your country (in fact, SPAMMING is illegal in the UK, so they are not only obeying UK law but preventing the people in question from violating UK law themselves) b) nothing to do with you and c) without consulting you, serving you correct legal papers (reason enough to ignore any legal document) or bothering to contact any form of legal contact in your country, then maybe you can use your powers of sarcasm to get you out.

Seriously, this case is a joke... serving legal papers by EMAIL? WTF? Of course, email is a guaranteed delivery system that ensures that person on the other end recieves it, is the correct person and cannot deny ever having recieved it (that's how to do real sarcasm, by the way)

Blues Brothers? (5, Funny)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112949)

ELWOOD
"Illinois spammers."

JAKE
"I hate Illinois spammers"

DEFAULT judgement (2, Informative)

Balthisar (649688) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112973)

Remember... this is a default judgement. If you're sued for anything and don't show up, you lose by default. There's nothing to do with the competence of the judge or the court, the merits of the case, or anything. If I sue you for moderating me down and ask for emotional damage compensation, you'd better show up to defend yourself or I'm going to win by default. If you're got a super low user id, I may ask the court to hand over your account to me.

Don't like SpamHaus? Don't use it. (1)

TheDrewbert (914334) | more than 7 years ago | (#16112988)

If you get a lot of false positives from your spam filter, it ends up becoming a pain to manage. At that point you'll probably switch to something else.

Okay. So I did a bit of research. (2, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16113009)

It looks like there was a pre-existing restraining order. This according to Spamhaus, it was "served" by email. Which is not a legal manner to serve an order and has no effect in the UK anyway.

If the organisation was on the RBL, how do they know they were served?

(Note for the humour impaired - The fact that I have a note for the humour impaired should tell you something).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>